Smt. Raj Bala Tayal vs Sulender Sharma

Mahesh Grover, J.—No one is present on behalf of the Respondent despite the fact that he had been served. On 5.8.2010 this Court in order to explore the possibility of settlement directed the parties to remain present but the Respondent did not turn up. The matter was adjourned to 7.10.2010 on which date also the Respondent was not present and in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2010 and today when the matter was taken up for hearing again no one is present on behalf of the Respondent, leaving the Court with no other option but to proceed with the matter. The grievance of the Petitioner stems from the order dated 2.2.2010 by which his amendment to the written statement has been declined.

The Petitioner is facing recovery proceedings of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-on account of an alleged loan taken by her late husband from the Respondent. The plea of the Respondent was that loan was advanced to M/s Tayal Electricals of which she was shown to be the proprietor by her husband who could not carry out any business because of his employment in government service. She thus admitted in the written statement that even though there were dealings with the Respondent yet on subsequent inquiry it had been revealed to her that amount of Rs. 47,000/-has infact been paid to the Respondent and to substantiate such a contention and show her bona fides, an application for amendment was being moved by which some material has been shown to the Court regarding settlement of accounts between the husband of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

As observed earlier, no one is present on behalf of the Respondent to controvert the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perusal of the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that the indulgence which has been so sought by the present Petitioner and which is to the following effect is more or less in consonance with the case set up by the Petitioner:

The husband of the Defendant Late Shri Ishwar Chand Tayal and the Plaintiff Shri Sulender Sharma were serving in the same department and were having transactions of money. On 26.9.2000 the Respondent-Plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs. 47000/-from M/s Tayal Electricals and upon the instructions of both i.e. Late Shri Ishwar Chand Tayal and the Respondent-Plaintiff, Sh. Prem Gautam, a common friend of Shri Ishwar Chand Tayal and Shri Sulender Sharma had got the amount of Rs. 47,000/-withdrawn from the account of M/s Tayal Electricals and deposited that amount in the bank account of the Respondent-Plaintiff on the same day, i.e. on 26.9.2000. That was a loan taken by the Plaintiff from M/s Tayal Electricals which was subsequently repaid by the Respondent-Plaintiff vide the cheque dated 9.2.2001 which the Plaintiff in the instant suit claimed to be a loan advanced to M/s Tayal Electricals. As such, the claim of the Plaintiff that the answering Defendant obtained loan of Rs. 50,000/-vide cheque dated 9.2.2001 is absolutely false and baseless. The suit of the Plaintiff is absolutely unfounded and the Plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted for verification of false facts contained in the plaint and for furnishing false affidavit in support thereof.

The petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to amend his written statement accordingly.